I had my kid and married in my early 20s and became a grandma at 45. Where I live, it’s my white skin that sticks out, not this pattern of reproduction. On the other hand, among the highly educated, mostly welloff whitefolks I know from going to school, the skin blends in but the pattern of reproduction is aberrant. The judgments and assumptions fly.

Would the areas prone to want abstinence-only or abstinence-first/everything else barely mentioned sex ed be liable to have cultural mores that tolerate/favor teen/early 20s motherhood? This, I think would be a far, far, far stronger than what is discussed for 15-60 hours in school.

In most parts of the abstinence belt, early marriage and motherhood is not stigmatized. The kids who enter the military or the workforce get married between 18 and 22, and the kids who went to college get married between 22 and 26. Kids are expected to come 1-3 years after marriage.

On the other hand, in the suburban/urban areas where a comprehensive sex ed approach is favored, families are smaller. Teen/early 20s motherhood is seen as a complete disaster.

Folks who marry under 25 are seen as somewhat of an aberration (The Washington Post ran an article on younger mothers, i.e. those under 26-27, a few months ago.) Kids generally show up in the mid 30s or even later.

I was 24, my wife was 21 when we got married, and people just assumed we HAD to be expecting. (For the record, I was 31 and my wife 29 when we had our first.)

My point is this — the results of abstinence only and comprehensive sex education programs probably reflect the values of the localities liable to adopt those programs.

And–it should start way, way before adolescence!
But, hey, what do I know, I’m just one of those antichoice, forced-motherhood, sex-negative, let’s-kill-all-the-born-kids-and-women harpies…..

And I think that is what a lot of people who object to sex ed are really concerned about. They aren’t worried about their children having the facts; they’re worried about the morality that will be taught along with the facts. And yes, you can say it’s up to the family to instill the values while the schools simply provide the facts, but it’s very difficult to get away from various agendas that go hand in hand with those facts.

A few years ago I went to a public meeting in our town held by a group that wants to establish comprehensive sex ed in the public schools. I went thinking I supported their efforts 100% and left feeling very uncertain about this group and even sex ed in general.

To begin with, a representative from PP opened the meeting (hardly reassuring). Teen parenthood was utterly disparaged with no discussion of how already-parenting teens might be brought into the discussion without being made to feel that they had “ruined their lives.” Concerns about how abortion would be approached in the classroom were dismissed as “a religious difference that we have to be respectful of.” And the condescending attitude toward teens in general was that they were horny little devils who can’t help having sex so we may as well at least make sure they don’t get pregnant/catch STDs in the process. I don’t want these particular people teaching my kids about sex and I can’t blame anyone else for feeling the same way.

I would love to see really good sex ed established in the schools but I’d personally like to see it move away from teenagers having/not having sex and more toward lifetime sexuality education that included pregnancy, childbirth and menopause. Much more comprehensive; much less controversial.

Sorting through everything on the Internet and telling reputable information from rubbish is hard enough for adults — we certainly don’t want to make our kids’ educations dependent on their ability to do the same. Sure, they can and should get some information from the net, but first they need to have a grounding both in the basic facts and in critical examination of information sources. So no, I think this debate is far from moot, because plenty of people don’t want the former to be taught and I’m not sure schools have quite figured out *how* to teach the latter yet.

This has nothing to do with Bristol Palin but a great deal to do with Sarah Palin and the attitude of the Republican conservative base on sex ed. One can’t not point it out — and one doesn’t have to say anything bad about Bristol in the process. The Republican base is in favor of keeping contraceptive information and education away from teenagers. What better refutation than their own vice presidential candidate having a daughter getting pregnant at 17?

It is certain that the right wing (and the press) would go after Obama hammer and tong if something like this happened in his family. Why are we liberals so eager to unilaterally disarm?